Candidates have limited control in an interview. They cannot control the questions they will be asked nor can they control the manner by which employers will rank and weigh their responses. They cannot control interviewer bias.

Despite such noble intentions, candidates are frequently rejected or hired for other criteria. Over the past several months, we have had candidates eliminated by clients not for failing to check off the exhaustive list of requisite experience, skills or competencies but rather...

Many hiring managers read resumes in a cursory manner. They review the companies and roles that candidates have filled over their careers while making note of education levels, stability, the quality/consistency of overall career trajectory, and purported skills, knowledge and competencies.

Executive search processes and their outcomes fascinate me to no end. I enjoy trying to figure out how organizations determine their requirements and how well the outcomes line up to them. The recent decision to hire Ron Tavener as OPP Commissioner is a case in point.

In our last post we discussed the temptations facing unemployed executives to move with extreme haste in finding a new role. Conceptualizing job loss as akin to falling off a horse they associate ‘down time' with unproductive, time-consuming activity.

Every week, without exception, we meet executives who have jumped back on their horses in this very manner and embraced a ‘spray and pray' job search strategy. For some it may work like a charm but for the majority, dare I say the vast majority, it is the wrong approach.

The message for companies is pay attention, respect personal dignity, gives candidates a voice and some control over the process, and treat them as partners in an important relationship. Not only will companies have a higher chance of hiring them, on terms possibly more favorable, but as it turns out, keeping them.

Recruiting Board Members –Why Style Matters

June 17, 2014 at 11:14 AM

We are frequently asked to conduct searches for board members on behalf of our clients. The requirements vary with the company. In some instances the firm seeks an individual with deep experience in a certain market or technology. In others, it is specific relationships or contacts which the board member can bring for the firm’s benefit. Sometimes it is the experience and wisdom of scaling businesses beyond our clients’ current size or level of complexity. On yet other occasions, it is specific functional experience that is required; geopolitical savvy in a certain part of the world; or specialized experience in corporate governance.

While our clients will readily discuss these types of requirements, they are far less inclined to volunteer issues of fit. In fact the discussion can get downright awkward when it turns to the personalities of the existing board members, how they make decisions, power dynamics, and how these influence the make-up of the person being recruited. Whatever those dynamics may be, does the firm expect the successful candidate to fit in, or to provide a counter-balance to a board somehow skewed or made ineffective by its current composition? And how will we know the right candidate?

One ‘board effectiveness’ consulting firm uses a variation of the Myers-Briggs survey in order to characterize board members by social style. They have found that 41% of all board members surveyed are what they term ‘extroverted and competitive’. While they acknowledge the many positive attributes associated with this type ‘A’, action-oriented style, they also point out that a room full of these people may not be the best listeners, most patient, or inclusive in their decision-making. In fact, in a meeting of such individuals, decision-making may at times come down to who yells the loudest or wields the biggest stick.

The point is that board effectiveness is more than the sum total of experience around a table. It is more than the cachet of big names and contacts that a company is able to attract. Any discussion of board effectiveness has to include the ability to work together in a purposeful way. Boards are teams and like other teams, members play different roles and chemistry matters. To that end the consulting firm spoke of the importance of the ‘thoughtful and objective’ type board member, the ‘sociable and creative’ board member and the ‘caring and encouraging’ board member.

Social styles inventories are an old concept but one that continues to be useful when discussing team dynamics. It is not, repeat not a selection tool and it does not replace the other attributes in a board search. Social style will also struggle with the power variable which can never be underestimated for its impact on the dynamic of any board. Nonetheless, boards are wise to at contemplate the dynamics of their current board members as well as their social styles whenever they consider adding another one to the mix.

About the Author

Robert Hebert is the founder and Managing Partner of StoneWood Group Inc., a leading executive search firm in Canada. Since 1981, he has helped firms across a wide range of sectors address their senior recruiting, assessment and leadership development requirements.